Karnataka High Court
Vijay Kumar S/O Siddappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 February, 2018
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G. Narendar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G. NARENDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200096/2018
Between:
Vijay Kumar S/o Siddappa,
Aged 53 years,
Occ. Govt. Teacher,
Working at H.P.S.,
Mandarwada, Taluk Jewargi,
Dist. Kalaburagi, R/at Itga (K),
Taluk and Dist. Kalaburagi.
... Petitioner
(By Sri J.Augustin, Advocate)
And:
The State of Karnataka
Through SHO,
Shahapur Police Station,
Presently represented by
Addl. SPP, High Court Buildings,
Kalaburagi - 585 103.
... Respondent
(By Sri P.S.Patil, HCGP)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. praying to allow the present petition and also be
pleased to direct Shahapur Police to release the petitioner
on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.395/2017,
which is registered for the offences punishable under
Section 3(1)(ix) of Supreme Court and ST (Prevention of
Atrocities Act), 1989 and under Section 198 and 420 of
IPC.
This criminal petition coming on for Orders this day,
the Court made the following:-
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader.
2. The petitioner is under the provision of Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying he be enlarged on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.395/2017 registered on 13.10.2017 by the respondent police.
3. The complainant is the Woman PSI of CRE Cell Office, Kalaburagi.
4. The crux of the complaint/allegations is that the petitioner, who does not belong to Gond community has illegally obtained the caste certificate as belonging to the Gond community which is classified as Schedule Tribe 3 and on the basis of the said certificate dated 15.11.1989 he has secured employment as Assistant Teacher. Hence, the complaint under Section 3(1)(ix) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act,) 1989 and Section 198 and 420 of IPC.
5. It is seen that the said provision under the Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 has been amended by way of substitution with effect from 18.01.2016.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the registration of the offence under a non existence provision is contrary to law and the rejection of petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C by the District Court is illegal and un-sustainable. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is seen that the said provision Section 3 of sub-Section (1) came to be substituted by Act No.1 of 2016 with effect from 26.01.2016.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further draws the attention of this Court to the order of the Government of Karnataka dated 02.09.1986, whereby it 4 has been specifically ordered that all cases and prosecution launched against the persons belonging to Kuruba community for having obtained caste certificates as belonging to Gond or Rajgond community shall not be pursued and shall be kept in abeyance.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further places reliance on another notification dated 04.03.2014, whereby it is made known that on receipt of ethnographic study of the members of the Kuruba community in Bidar and undivided Gulbarga district area, have recommended to the Government of Karnataka to include the Kuruba community of Bidar, Gulbarga and Yadigiri districts in the list of Scheduled Tribes and have considered them as synonyms of Gond/Rajgond caste and hence he would submit initiation of the prosecution and registration of the case, is unsustainable in law.
9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that prosecution has been initiated as the petitioner has failed to surrender the certificate 5 pursuant to the government order dated 11.03.2002. He would submit that the scheme is in the nature of an amnesty scheme was introduced by the Government and under the said government order, the prosecutions were withdrawn and all departmental proceedings and enquiry before the various communities have been dropped.
10. Further as per the State Government order it is seen that appointments already made have been regularized under the earlier notification in respect of those belonging to Nayak, Niak, Beda, Valmiki, Pariwara and Talwars communities. That appointments on the basis of Schedule Tribes quota ought to be treated as appointments under the General merit category and they were also entitled to claim those benefits available respect of that category of backward classes to which they belong.
11. As per the order of the State Government it is seen that appointments already made and those that have became final are deemed to have been made under the general merit category and the persons who have been 6 appointed were only entitled to claim benefits reserved to that category of backward classes to which they belonged.
12. On a specific query to the learned High Court Government Pleader as to whether the petitioner has sought to take advantage of the certificate after the issuance of the government order 11.03.2002. He would fairly submit that no attempts have been made by the petitioner to obtain any advantage after 2002. That being so, prima facie this Court is of the considered opinion that no offence or violation of the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out. Hence, petition is entertained.
13. The respondent-Police are hereby directed to release the petitioner/accused on bail, in the event of arrest in Crime No.395/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(ix) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 and under Section 198 and 420 of IPC pending on the file of Sessions Judge at Yadagiri subject to the following conditions :-
7
1. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Court of Sessions Court at Yadagiri;
2. Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission of the trial Court;
3. Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidences or attempt to influence the witnesses or the prosecution.
The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations made by this Court in the disposal of the petition. The observations are made only for the purpose of disposal of this petition and the trial Court shall proceed with the trial without being influenced by the observations made by this Court.
Petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE sn